seebs

http://www.christianforums.com/showt...454#post554454

This thread started out with a question about the common claim that God's word is "eternal and unchanging", used to justify refusing to even *consider* questions about the morality of, say, gay sex. So... There's a bit in the middle of fairly interesting theology, for people who like it, but the highlight I wanted to call up was this fascinating sub-thread spawned by unworthyone. In it, he attempts to get Outspoken (whom some of you may remember as LouisBooth) to answer a moral dilemma. The answers are, shall we say, fascinating, mostly revolving around "don't get in that situation".

Shake

AHHH! I picked up where your link took me to, and read a couple of pages. The responses of Outspoken just hurt my brain! :banghead:

wildernesse

This reminds me of one of the first threads I read at CF: People were talking about sex ed in schools (or something like that) and some people were strict abstinence only and others said, well that's the best, but if people are going to have sex then they need tools to make the best decision.

What was frustrating was this:

Poster 1) Well, if you knew that your daughter was having sex wouldn't you want her to be informed so that she could protect herself?

Poster 2) But she's not going to.

1) Do you really have control over that? Anyway, I'm not saying that she will--I'm saying *if* she was, would you want her to be informed?

2) But she's not going to.

1) This is a hypothetical situation. IF your daughter were having sex, would you want her to be informed?

2) But she's not going to.

And on and on and on and on and on. :banghead: :banghead:

--tibac

seebs

Some people can't do any kind of hypothetical.

seebs

It gets better.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/32615.html

We now have a debate between "it is obvious that slavery is morally okay", and "it is obvious that slavery is morally wrong", both sides people who accuse anyone who disagrees with them about the Bible of "twisting Scripture".

This, my friends, will be fun.

Arvel Joffi

Anyone whose moral foundation relies solely upon "because the <insert book> said so" is an unreasoning fool. I would be loathe to discuss any subject with an idiot like that.

curmudgeon

It IS funny. You might want to point out that their arguments rather make a hash of "God's Objective Morality". Saying that God doesn't condone slavery, but puts up with it in certain instances, is the absolute HEIGHT of relativist morality. I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning. It smells like.... hypocrisy.

seebs

In the other thread I pointed to at the beginning of this one, someone does a fairly good job of resolving this, by arguing that the specific rules are not what is unchanging, and that it's a human failing to try to make specific and generalizable rules, rather than using underlying principles (such as compassion).

It does warm my heart to see two people who have regularly attacked me for being unwilling to recognize God's unchanging moral code attacking each other about it.

beyelzu

seebs, the situation described by unworthyone kind of happened for real. a woman came into a radio station with a gun and demanded that a dj have sex with her or she would kill him. i think it happened in december. but the point is that outspoken insisted that things like the hypothetical dont occur. even one example of it occurring and his statement is wrong.

seebs

For all I know, UWO knew that.

And yes, I think "this hypothetical doesn't happen" is a poor argument, unless you have good reason to believe that it really *can't* happen.